On 11/03/2010 11:04, Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:24 +0000, Nathan wrote:
>> If I have multiple representations of a resource which I consider
>> equal, let's say one of each of the following: RDF+XML, RDF+N3, SVG
>>
>> Then should all three representations be considered equivalent?
>
> They certainly *could* all represent the same thing. Whether they *do*
> represent the same thing is a judgement call.
Well, if they are accessible via the same URI, using content
negociation, then my reading of the HTTP specification is that they
*must be* representations of the same resource.
Not sure what Nathan means by "equivalent"...
>> Is it correct that all representations must have consistent fragment
>> identifiers in order to be considered equivalent?
>
> A fragment identifier should not identify different things in different
> representations. (Though it may be unrepresented in some or all of the
> representations.)
Is that so?
If I recall correctly the URI RFC (no internet when writing the mail,
sorry), the semantics of fragments identifiers depends on the retrieved
content-type. So why would they *have* to identify the same thing?
That being said, I agree it sounds like a good practice. Especially if
you consider an RDF/XML and a Turtle representation of the same RDF
graph... If their fragment identifier were not consistent, that would be
a serious headache... But is this rule written somewhere?
pa